Monarchy has always promoted itself as flawless, divine, righteous and wise, when it is occupied by human beings who are none of those things, with only a few wise people becoming fewer thanks to our education system. And because of our flaws, we tend to cling to those who are mystified so easily thanks to the constant propaganda machine of Buckingham palace, its minions abroad, and general supporters of an all-perfect ruler that has no need to be chosen by the people.
On April 13th in the morning I read an article from the Guardian, a newspaper from the homeland of our masters, where the reviewer of a play became disturbed by its portrayal of our monarch as a perfect counterpart to the flawed elected officials that are elected to office. In this case, the monarch serves as a therapist to every prime minister that came and went under her reign. These PMs would make frank admissions about their personal lives and political conflicts, with only eternal wisdom spewing from the old whore’s lips through the ages, even though some of it was put in her mouth, the same way monarchists would make up words that came from her mouth.
As elected officials fail to do their job, people are becoming more and more fond of unelected officials to resolve the country’s problems. While a strongman is needed to resolve a countries woes, they should only appear rarely to resolve the issues of the day. To preserve them perpetually would be not only pointless but dangerous, and that their actions cause more problems than resolutions, though inaction would also result in the same thing.
Observe any communist, anarchist, or fascist literature that rails against democracy, and you’ll notice a pattern. Particularly in the realms of fascism and communism, where individualism and individual liberty are regarded as a danger to either everyone else or to the state itself, and you’ll find where the monarchists draw their arguments from.